 |
|
|
recordproducti
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 381
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent compact and versatile zoom for general purpose work that's pretty light, weather sealed (so far so good) and has decent IQ. IS works well. Makes a great video lens on the 5DmkII.
|
|
Cons:
|
The 24mm end is too distorted. It's not, in my view, as sharp as the 24-70L (but it's a lot lighter etc), it is pretty slow at f/4 but you know that when you buy it!
|
|
|
I both love and hate this lens in equal measure. Actually, hate is too strong a word, maybe 'am annoyed by' is the better phrase!
It's the perfect 'walk around' lens on either the FF 5DmkII and 1DmkIII. It's got pretty decent IQ. I find that images taken with the 25-105 when printed, look superb, better than I'd expect. I can take it out on a damp or wet day mounted on the 1DmkIII. For general outdoor shooting I use this lens a lot.
I hate the distortion at the wide end. It just spoils the lens for me but not enough to get rid of it! I just use the 16-35L for that end. F/4 is a bit slow for my liking and even though the I.S. is good, it means that you're frequently bumping the ISO up pretty high to stop motion.
I can see why people own this and the 24-70L. Both have their advantages. I bought one of these, sold it and then bought it back so I think that shows I must like it!
|
|
 May 1, 2009
|
|
eosing
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2008
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 26, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
|
Is a good lens but not great, it can be better if it is F2.8
I prefer to have more ability to stop action than ability to handhold lower speeds. Essentially, both measures prevent blurry shots. I think that having the 2.8 and being able to increase the shutter speed is significantly more useful than being able to handhold longer exposures. Seems to me that with the 2.8, you have a better chance of stopping action, which most of the time is what we want to do anyway.
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2009
|
|
rossmurphy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 24, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 48
|
|
|
Apr 8, 2009
|
|
mitekphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 17, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 2, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, full 3-stop IS, weather-sealed, convenient zoom range, one of very few (or is it the only one?) image-stabilized 24mm wide-angle lens, doesn't feel too heavy
|
|
Cons:
|
contrast could be a bit better
|
|
|
This is a very sharp lens, or supposed to be. At least, for me it became one after its trip to Canon. Now, when I examine the images from it, I continue to be surprised how sharp it is. Probably the best general purpose lens, and a unique wide-angle image-stabilized zoom.
|
|
|
Apr 2, 2009
|
|
roo72
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 9, 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 2, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great image quality, excellent IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
Quite odd focal length if used on crop sensor, fairly useless lens hood on crop body.
|
|
|
Excellent lens, my second "L" that I bought after I got rid of the two kit lenses that came with my 400D. I wanted a walk-around, general purpose lens to compliment my 70-200 2.8 IS and after looking at the alternatives (EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) I decided to go with this lens. The EF-S was a close competitor but I decided against buying it as I'm planning on getting a FF camera in the near future. I would gladly give up half of its focal length to get f2.8 but nothing's perfect, after testing 24-70 2.8 I decided that IS is more important to me that a bit more light (f4 vs. 2.8), if I want wide aperture I have my 85 1.8 (while dreaming of 85 1.2... maybe one day).
The image quality is generally excellent except for a mild barrel distortion at the wide end (easily corrected with Photoshop anyway). it's a great genera, purpose lens and I'd recommend it to anyone.
|
|
|
Apr 2, 2009
|
|
Krich
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 160
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,100.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Decent optical quality, IS, fast focusing, build quality (not that I really care).
|
|
Cons:
|
Very poor value for the money, decent (not great!) optics especially in 70-105 mm range, not a very useful range for me personally.
|
|
|
I must start with a disclaimer: the so called “normal range” (24-28 -> 70-105 mm) lenses -turned out not to be my cup of tea. I had two copies of 24-105, one used I traded my 24-70 for on FM (a big mistake), and the brand new one I bought as a kit with 5D. I had a brand new lens and the used one at the same time so I had to sell one of them. I sold the new one for the used lens was sharper. I then bought a used 17-40 f/4… and found that the 24-105 has no use anymore. I had the 17-40, 24-105, 50/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 IS.
Initially, I tried to take 24-105 instead of 70-200 with me for its versatility. Every single time I did, I regretted it. The 70-200 is far superior in the overlapping region, and offers more reach, the 17-40 offers far wider range and much better contrast and even better resolution in 24-40 range (yes, I was lucky to get a great copy of this lens), and 50 f/1.4 is superior at 50 mm in terms of resolution (when stopped down to f/2.8 –f/4), bokeh, lightness and compactness. What did I need the 24-105 for? I went on and sold it.
To be fair, it’s a decent lens. The images are reasonably sharp and have decent contrast (although inferior to the aforementioned lenses), and the image stabilization is really useful in 70-105 range indoors. This lens does everything well, but nothing great.
The bokeh is somewhat distracting; subject isolation is limited by its relatively slow max aperture, for flashless indoor shots the aperture is too slow to stop action (and with a flash you can use any cheap lens stopped down with the same results). At least 24-70 provided better bokeh and was one stop faster. It was a better lens, although I wouldn’t buy it again having this range covered already (I don’t care for 40-50 and 50-70 mm gaps). Not for $1200, and the need to carry this brick.
And I wouldn’t buy just a decent lens for $1100. For a grand, I expect my lens to be great.
How would I rate this lens? Well, let’s see. If 70-200 f/4 IS deserves 10 for optical quality, and 17-40 deserves 9, I’d say 24-105 deserves 7. Let’s add one point for image stabilization. All right, 8 it is.
As for the value for the money, if you are still thinking of buying this lens new for over a grand ($1100 as of today), just do yourself a favor: for the same amount of money take a used 17-40 (around $550), a used 70-200 f/4 (non IS, around $500) and a used or new 50/1.8 (around $80). You cover far greater range and with much better quality. Plus, some low-light indoor ability of 50, and great portraits with 70-200 at 200 mm (about the sane background blur as 100 mm f/2 would provide, at least for distant backgrounds). Well, you lose the IS, but that’s all.
I won’t subtract any points from my rating for poor value for the money, you know yourself what it costs, I rate the performance only.
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2009
|
|
Krich
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 160
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Decent optical quality, IS, fast focusing, build quality (not that I really care).
|
|
Cons:
|
Very poor value for the money, decent (not great!) optics especially in 70-105 mm range, not a very useful range for me personally.
|
|
|
I must start with a disclaimer: the so called “normal range” (24-28 -> 70-105 mm) lenses turned out not to be my cup of tea. I had two copies of 24-105, one used I traded my 24-70 for on FM (a big mistake), and a brand new one I bought as a kit with 5D. I had a brand new lens and the used one at the same time so I had to sell one of them. I sold the new one for the used lens was sharper. I then bought a used 17-40 f/4… and found that the 24-105 has no use anymore. I had the 17-40, 24-105, 50/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 IS.
Initially, I tried to take 24-105 instead of 70-200 with me for its versatility. Every single time I did, I regretted it. The 70-200 is far superior in the overlapping region, and offers more reach, the 17-40 offers far wider range and much better contrast and even better resolution in 24-40 range (yes, I was lucky to get a great copy of this lens), and 50 f/1.4 is superior at 50 mm in terms of resolution (when stopped down to f/2.8 –f/4), bokeh, lightness and compactness. What did I need the 24-105 for?
To be fair, it’s a decent lens. The images are reasonably sharp and have decent contrast (although inferior to the aforementioned lenses), and the image stabilization is really useful in 70-105 range indoors. This lens does everything well, but nothing great.
The bokeh is somewhat distracting; subject isolation is limited by its relatively slow max aperture, for flashless indoor shots the aperture is too slow to stop action (and with a flash you can use any cheap lens stopped down with the same results). At least 24-70 provided better bokeh and was one stop faster. It was a better lens, although I wouldn’t buy it again having this range covered already (I don’t care for 40-50 and 50-70 mm gaps). Not for $1200, and the need to carry this brick.
And I wouldn’t buy just a decent lens for $1100. For a grand, I expect my lens to be great.
How would I rate this lens? Well, let’s see. If 70-200 f/4 IS deserves 10 for optical quality, and 17-40 deserves 9, I’d say 24-105 deserves 7. Let’s add one point for image stabilization. All right, 8 it is.
As for the value for the money, if you are still thinking of buying this lens new for over a grand ($1100 as of today), just do yourself a favor: for about the same amount of money take a used 17-40 (around $550), a used 70-200 f/4 (non IS, around $450-500) and a used or new 50/1.8 (around $80). You cover far greater range and with much better quality. Plus, some low-light indoor ability of the 50, and great portraits with 70-200 at 200 mm (about the sane background blur as 100 mm f/2 would provide, at least for distant backgrounds). Well, you lose the IS, but that’s all.
I won’t subtract any points from my rating for poor value for the money, you know yourself what it costs, I rate the performance only.
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2009
|
|
x0SiN0x
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 81
|
|
Review Date: Mar 2, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,249.95
|
|
Pros:
|
IS comes in handy, nice range... seems sharp to me
|
|
Cons:
|
Wish the end didn't extend so much
|
|
|
I don't recall the last time this lens was taken off my 20D.
The lens of choice since 2006
|
|
|
Mar 2, 2009
|
|
malla1962
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 25, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Feb 28, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight, 77mm filter is handy, IS, 105mm
|
|
Cons:
|
Bokeh is a bit ropey, distortion.
|
|
|
I got this lens for travel as most uk Airlines only give you 6KG carry on. I am no great lover of zoom lensesbut find this one prety good
for my needs, IQ is not as good as my 24-70L but good enough and think it will make a better walkaround lens for travel, all in all its a good lens for not a bad price.
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2009
|
|
stargazer78
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 18, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 395
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatile zoom range; Excellent build quality; Very good sharpness;
|
|
Cons:
|
Barrel distortion and vignetting is higher than normal;
|
|
|
[ Reviewed on a EOS 5D Mark II ]
I must've read every single review of the 24-105L review I could find on the Internet, including the 400+ user reviews here at FM. Quite a few people were saying that the lens becomes soft at the long end of the zoom (70mm to 105mm). And that the lens has questionable sharpness in the corners on full frame. Reviews at slrgear and photozone seemed to confirm these complaints. However, there were also plenty of people who swore that the 24-105L is edge-to-edge sharp at all focal lengths.
Needless to say, I was conflicted about buying a 24-105L. Too many conflicting opinions from too many people. After 2 years, I finally caved in and bought one for myself. And I must say I'm pleasantly surprised with the lens. It has definitely exceeded the expectations I had formed from reading so many reviews.
My thoughts? The 24-105L is one strange beast. Center sharpness does not change at all, regardless of focal length or aperture. It's amazingly consistent. Whether at 105mm @ f4.0, or 70mm @ f8.0, or 24mm @ f4.0... they all look the same when pixel peeping with a 5DII. Sharpness at the edges does improve when stopping down from f4.0, but it quickly peaks at f5.6. Overall, sharpness is remarkably consistent across all focal lengths and all apertures. It is extremely sharp in the center, and acceptably sharp along the corners. This is true pretty much for the entire zoom range. I am very, very pleased with the results.
Build quality is superb. It handles well with my 5DII, but feels oversized when mounted on my Rebel. Image stabilization works very well. Color rendition is beautiful, and contrast is just about perfect. Zoom ring is nice and stiff, and the barrel has no play or wobble.
My complaints about the lens? Barrel distortion is quite pronounced at the wide end (24mm). The distortion is easily fixed when processing RAW in DPP, but the "repaired" image will end up looking more like 26mm than 24mm. Vignetting is also disappointingly high for an f4.0 lens. I also wish the lens has a zoom lock mechanism. There's no zoom creep on the lens (yet), but I can imagine that problem developing a few years down the road. It would've been nice to have a zoom lock mechanism --- just in case.
Optical distortions are inevitable for a lens that boasts a 4.4x zoom factor. These are compromises in an ambitious lens design, so I won't hold it against Canon. Bottom line is that the 24-105L is the PERFECT zoom lens for full frame. Excellent zoom range, wide field of view, image stabilization, and sharp all the way through. What's not to like?
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2009
|
|
Fernando Salas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 31, 2007
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 15, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,059.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Excelentes imagenes, claras, colores brillantes.
|
|
Cons:
|
por su precio me gustaria que su construccion fuera mas robusta
|
|
|
Compre este lente hace 1 año 6 meses y lo he usado en diferentes situaciones, landscape, portrait en mi 5D y me ha parecido muy bueno. Imagenes claras, colores brillantes. solo me parece que por su precio canon debio de haber puesto un poco mas de empeño en su construccion, cuando usas tele la parte que sale del lente no esta completamente bien ajustada, se siente un poco suelta y eso no es muy agradable para un lente de la serie "L". Tengo el 70-200 4.0 L y nada que ver en comparacion a su construccion y no es mucha la diferencia en precio (aunque el rango es muy diferente). Pero en general es un lente muy versatil para aquel aficionado que le gusta tener un buen rango en zoom y con una calidad fotografica muy buena.
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2009
|
|
franzoi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 30, 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Lente molto versatile, stabilizzatore a 3 stop ottimo, molto leggera, qualità fantastica
|
|
Cons:
|
Sarebbe fantastica a f/2,8 fisso con stabilizzatore 4 stop
|
|
La lente che monto per il 90%.
Per le fotografie di viaggio è la fine del mondo.
Per chi vuol vedere qualche fotografia da mio sito
www.franzoi.eu
quasi tutte sono state fatte con questa magnificenza.
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2009
|
|
Claria
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 17, 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 28, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Comming from the EF 28-105mm f:3,5-4,5 mark I as my standard lens to this here is "not" to bad.... :-)) Gives me a different color tone on both my analog and digital slr.
This lens is my new love. :-)
|
|
Cons:
|
Non
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2009
|
|
bklyn_g
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Glass, IS, color, range, f4 at 105mm, very smooth action, weather sealing, durability, weight, filter size.
|
|
Cons:
|
f4 at the wide end, zoom creep, fairly big with hood on, but worth the penalty.
|
|
After owning the Canon 24-105 f4L IS lens for a few months I can safely say its the best lens I've ever had. It combines the usefulness of a zoom with the color and sharpness of Canon prime lenses...and it has IS, which makes the vast majority of shots keepers.
I pair it to my 50D, and was a bit concerned that I'd suffer with a not-so-wide 24mm (X1.6). At times, I do wish I had more wide end, but for the general lens tasks I use it for the focal range is adequate. It would surely be a great lens on a full frame format SLR, but I might miss the long end on the crop sensor.
The build quality is outstanding with a polished look and feel and very smooth zoom and focus ring action. The lens barrel has a nice dampened feel. Some have complained of overly stiff zoom rings. I seem to be having the opposite problem with a very loose ring and excessive zoom creep. I'll be sending it in this week for service, and Im sure it'll come back tight. The lens is also black, which is much more anonymous than a white L lens. Still, the lens looks very pro, especially with the hood, and does attract attention in what I feel is a worrysome way, particularly in urban environments. In the company of your shooting buddies, it is sufficiently swanky. For nature its amazing.
What matters most is the image, and this lens does not disappoint. The quality is simply superb, with amazing sharpness and rich subtle colors as only Canon can provide. The glass is clearly a step above the consumer grade canon lenses. In fact, I have become a prime-obsessed person, and can compare the 50mm f1.4, stopped down to f8 to this lens and the results are almost indistinguishable in terms of sharpness and color. Thing is, with this lens you can zoom, and it has IS. Of course you don't get 1.4, or even 2.8, which is clearly the weak point of this lens. But, in terms of keeper rate, I've never had so many. IS is an amazing feature that really affects results. Im officially a convert.
The down side, of course, is the aperture at the wide end. Don't plan on doing available light work indoors. People just move too much to capture a proper shot. Of course, thanks to IS, the background will be sharp! So, you can shoot static objects well, but not action of any kind. Still, having f4 at the long end is great in general photography and makes the zoom even more useful.
My cousin owns the 24-70 f2.8, which always gets compared to this lens. Its definitely bigger, heavier and has a much bigger hood. Quality is amazing, in both build and image characteristics, but I would rather have the IS than 2.8. Ill use my Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Canon 50mm f1.4 instead for low light...without IS.
In conclusion, I believe this lens is outstanding. I recommend it very highly. It, and the 50D, have provided the step I needed to take my photography to the next level. The zoom creep is annoying, but I'm guessing that a trip to Canon will solve the problem.
Here are some sample images taken recently in Argentina:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycgeo/3218071661/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycgeo/3219322430/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycgeo/3218915414/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycgeo/3218924662/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycgeo/3218554258/
Suerte!
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009
|
|
ToreU58
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 7, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,225.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom range, Color, IS, Build, Price.
|
|
Cons:
|
IQ, Distortion, Vignetting and corner sharpness,
|
|
|
In general I don't like zooms down to their general ability to produce poor image quality. This on suffer from the same, however, it does somewhat better than most. For travel photography it's an ideal partner if you need to travel light. F4.0 generally does the work for you with the good high iso performance on the modern cameras. But compared to almost any fixed focal, the IQ it produces is mediocre.
I do use it from time to time for shear convenience but what generally sits on my camera are fast primes, 35, 50 and 135.
|
|
|
Jan 7, 2009
|
|
disegno-s
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 15, 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 54
|
|
Review Date: Jan 6, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $774.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Colors and sharpness are great !
|
|
Cons:
|
Would be nice to have IS mode 2 for close up panning.
|
|
I have bought this lens to fill a gap between my EF-S17-55 f/2.8 IS USM and the EF70-200 f/2.8 IS USM lens, also because it has such a nice range.
I mainly shoot cars, so the 24mm isn't too useful on a 40D during a meeting, but on a private shoot you have more space and the 24-105 is my weapon of choice (next to the 70-200).
Went for the 24-105 instead of the 24-70 because of the IS and longer range, the aperture of 'only' f/4 didn't really bother me as a mainly shoot at f/5.8 to f/8.0 anyway to get the entire car sharp on the shot.
Did a wedding for a friend with the 24-105/70-200 combo with two 40D's and the shots turned out magnificent, this lens is a keeper in my book.
Johan
www.CarPhotoTutorials.com
Automotive photography made easy
|
|
|
Jan 6, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
529
|
987866
|
Oct 3, 2022
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
85% of reviewers
|
$1,500.96
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.44
|
8.05
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
